essex canary

But ultimately they must be responsible for it and it should be done correctly first time. Why not ask for a copy before it is sent? No checks and balances is exactly the problem as the Post Office clearly demonstrates with horrendous consequences.

We don't want the scum in the Play offs, just bask in the glory of the 15 years and make it 16 in the PL next year. Russ and Daniel on the horizon in whatever order.

Not sure exactly what is being suggested here? The fact is that NCFC has balanced its transfer cash within the year. Surely we are moving away from this to a concept of speculate to accumulate? Is there any news beyond that?

The Board collectively. Then again the handsomely remunerated member should be in the forefront. The Post Office is a great example of what can happen when this principle isn't followed.

As in responsibility cannot be delegated.

Poor commissioning and/or checking if the latter therefore still down to the Club.

It will certainly be the most interesting thing to look for in November. Without the premium on these his total equity outlay would be around £3.5 million for his 40.4% probably roughly equivalent to what the minorities paid in broadly quarter of a century old money for their 19.2% and we would know where the season ticket increase is destined.

I think I will change my odds slightly in favour of it being correct. After all it is £4.68 million on which MA could earn more Interest.

If you looked at Burnley's Accounts for the last 10 years under their previous ownership you would see a highly efficient and effective business. Whether they remain that under their new American ownership is open to question. Whether we would be going down that road had we been so successful under our domestic ownership is also open to question and I would argue probably not. As for wider reach nationally and internationally by all means go down that road if desired but eventually it creates franchise football as distinct from we support our local team. Teams like Burnley, West Brom, Leicester even probably Leeds with far greater reach are still pricing in their local supporters.

None of them are riveting but the Good Friday ones stand out as a variation on John Cleese's don't mention the war theme.

Even money each option. Par for the course.

Is this modernisation or the Victorian Age? Never ignore the thin end of the wedge.

The Good Friday Notes from the Boardroom was certainly a classic.

Based on the last OSP meeting that shouldn't be anymore than a halfpenny.

Another interesting reference point is WBA's recent sale for apparently £20 million plus debt repayment. Assuming S&J only want the same £25 per share as Foulger that leaves headroom for at least something of a return settlement to minority shareholders. That said in many ways it may be good to see the minority shareholding of 19.2% carried forward but only if it is modernised rather than being a generation behind it's time. Maybe our newly unified Board could work on that?

But Shef did suggest it and mentioned Burnley who settled honourably with their minority shareholders. What surprises me a little about Shef's reference points is the price he quotes since what must unfortunately matter in a sense is the failed Webberlution gamble which minority shareholders had no say in and which perhaps renders the price sought by trading shareholders as more realistic. That is assuming we can rely on S&J doing the right thing for minority shareholders who they relied upon for money they didn't have.

The bricks will also start to look a little outmoded eventually. At least mine has got my son's name on it too.

If the shares you are referring to were quoted shares you would know what their value was at any point in time. Of course the position with NCFC is they are unquoted. Nonetheless it still must logically reflect the value of an underlying business which is a little different from the brick in the wall analogy which can never confer any value on any prospective purchaser.

If we become Brighton or Brentford Mark 2 then fine. Could be Watford Mark 2 though. From where we are we I guess we have to take the risk. The problem with S&J has been their volte-face from the inclusive responsible finance Football Club to the secrecy surrounding the Webber gamble.

Real stadium attendance is clearly a real issue for NCFC at midweek matches where I think we all know it tends to fall below 90%. A good initiative there would be to provide a ST opt out option for those who can't make those games with some monetary compensation then sell with a competitive promotion as at the margin these games aren't attractive. An element of speculate to accumulate in terms of atmosphere creation and new fans.

Perhaps he is the member of Norfolk Group that the EFL is having difficulty with?

If you take those specific lines end column table 2 your conclusion is correct for the Cities alone. At County level though you would need to include row 67 for Leics which reads far more favourably than rows 96 & 97 which would need to be included for Norfolk.

Where are the Norfolk specific figures there? East Anglia is not a reliable measure for Norfolk since Suffolk and Cambridgeshire especially the latter are much higher than both Leicestershire and Norfolk.

Perhaps Liz Truss is economics adviser to all Football Clubs?

Wikipedia GVA by English County - Leicestershire 35,172 dollars, Norfolk 31,806 dollars. Convert to £ sterling. Minimum season ticket price 1.4 pence in the pound for Leicester compared to 2.1 pence in the pound for Norwich. That is why NCFC have to rely on so many out of county ST holders and why the Norfolk public won't hoover up casual seats at even more expensive prices for run of the mill matches.